umtri research review, vol. 33, no. 3 · • university of michigan transportation research...

• UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE • JULY–SEPTEMBER 2002 • VOLUME 33, NUMBER 3 •

U M T R I

FLYINGANDDRIVING

AFTER 9/11on page1 IIII nnnn

ssss iiiidddd

eeee :::: Safer Telematics ...............5

Library Services ................8

Hot off the Press ............10

Conferences & Events......12

Transportation Tidbits .....13

• UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE • JULY–SEPTEMBER 2002 • VOLUME 33, NUMBER 3 •

U M T R I

ISSN 0739 7100

Writer and Editor: Monica MillaDesigner and

Cover Photographer: Shekinah ErringtonPrinter: UM Printing Services

The UMTRI Research Review is published four times a year by theResearch Information and Publications Center of the University ofMichigan Transportation Research Institute, 2901 Baxter Road, AnnArbor, Michigan 48109-2150 (http://www.umtri.umich.edu). The subscription price is $35 a year, payable by all subscribers exceptthose who are staff members of a State of Michigan agency or an organ-ization sponsoring research at the Institute. See the subscription formon the inside back cover. For change of address or deletion, pleaseenclose your address label.

The University of Michigan, as an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer, com-plies with all applicable federal and state laws regarding nondiscrimination and affirma-tive action, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Section 504of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The University of Michigan is committed to a policyof nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for all persons regardless of race, sex, color,religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disabili-ty, or Vietnam-era veteran status in employment, educational programs and activities, oradmissions. Inquiries or complaints may be addressed to the University's Director ofAffirmative Action and Title IX/Section 504 Coordinator, Office for a MulticulturalCommunity, 2072 Administrative Services Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1432,(734) 763-0235, TTY (734) 647-1388. For other University of Michigan informationcall (734) 764-1817.

The Regents of the University:David A. Brandon, Ann ArborLaurence B. Deitch, Bingham FarmsDaniel D. Horning, Grand HavenOlivia P. Maynard, GoodrichRebecca McGowan, Ann ArborAndrea Fischer Newman, Ann ArborS. Martin Taylor, Gross Pointe FarmsKatherine E. White, Ann ArborMary Sue Coleman, ex officio

This article was first published in American Scientist,January–February 2003, and is reprinted in this editionwith permission of American Scientist, magazine of SigmaXi, The Scientific Research Society.

Many people who are per-fectly relaxed cruising ournation’s highways become

jittery when they get on an airliner—although most know full well that fly-ing is safer than driving. The statistics

are indeed clear on this point. Forexample, we and a colleague, DanWeintraub, published a paper in 1991that documented the substantially low-er risk of flying compared with drivingin the United States. Some of themany millions of Americans who flewover the next few years probablyderived comfort from such hard facts.

But now, a decade later, thingshave changed: The hijacking of fourlarge jets on September 11, 2001, andthe disastrous events that ensued led

many to forgo flying in the UnitedStates during the following months.For example, in the fourth quarter of2001, there was a drop of 18 percentin the number of passengers comparedwith the same time period in 2000.Many still avoid air travel. We thusthought it appropriate to again calculatethe risks involved in flying and driving,taking into account the latest statistics,including the tragic deaths of the pas-sengers on those four hijacked planes.

UMTRI Research Review 1

continued…

Flying AND DrivingAFTER THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS

UMTR

I / SH

EKIN

AH ER

RINGT

ON

Any nervous passengers on this flight heading for Detroit Metropolitan Airport could calm themselves with the knowledge that,from a statistical perspective, they are much safer flying than those driving below on Interstate-94.

By Michael Sivak and Michael Flannagan*

* Michael Sivak and Michael Flannagan both work in UMTRI’sHuman Factors Division, Sivak as division head and Flannaganas a senior associate research scientist.

SAFETY INNUMBERS

The risks of flying anddriving are influenced by dif-ferent parameters. Whereas therisk of driving depends moststrongly on the distance traveled,the risk of flying is primarilyaffected by the number oftakeoffs and landings. A studycarried out by Boeing indicatesthat out of 7,071 worldwideairline fatalities during the in-terval between 1991 and 2000,95 percent happened eitherduring takeoff and climb aftertakeoff, or during descent andlanding. Conversely, only 5percent of the fatalities resultedfrom accidents that occurred atcruising altitudes. Consequently,as we and others have pointedout before, the risk of flyingdepends mostly on the num-ber of flight segments involvedin the trip, not on the dis-tance traveled.

In gathering the statisticsfor flying, we considered thescheduled domestic passengeroperations of 10 major U.S.airlines: Alaska, America West,American, Continental, Delta,Northwest, Southwest, TWA,United, and US Airways. (Thecommuter affiliates of theseairlines were not included.) Becausethe number of airline fatalities variesgreatly from year to year, we used thedata compiled by the National Trans-portation Safety Board for a 10-yearperiod from 1992 through 2001. Tocalculate the probability that a particu-lar passenger would be killed on anonstop (one-segment) flight, we di-vided the number of passengers killedduring 1992–2001 (433, including the232 aboard the four hijacked flights)

by the product of the total number ofnonstop segments (54,061,237) andthe average number of passengers pernonstop segment (101.9). The result-ing value is 78.6 × 10–9, or roughlyeight in a hundred million.

The probability of a fatality on aone-stop (two-segment) flight can becalculated by combining the probabili-ties of a fatality on either segment.Roughly speaking, the probability ofbecoming a fatality on a two-segment

flight is just two times theprobability of becoming afatality on a one-segmentflight. (In actuality, becauseone must survive the firstsegment to become a fatalityon the second, the full prob-ability calculation is morecomplicated. But given thevery low probabilities involvedhere, the simple approximationis quite accurate.) Similarly,the probability of a fatality ona three-segment flight is approx-imately equal to three timesthe probability for a single-segment flight, and so on.

When one decides be-tween flying and driving, thelatter option usually involvesbeing the driver (as opposedto a passenger). Because thesusceptibility to injury varieswith the position of theoccupant in the vehicle, weincluded only drivers in thisanalysis. Also, we tallied justcars, light trucks, vans, andsport utility vehicles, ignoringheavy trucks, buses, andmotorcycles. Furthermore, we considered travel just onrural interstate highwaysbecause those constitute themost likely setting when onechooses to drive as an alter-native to flying. To gauge the

risks of such motoring, we used statis-tics from the year 2000, the mostrecent data available in detail.

To calculate the probability offatality per kilometer of driving, wedivided the number of driver fatalitieson rural interstate highways in 2000(1,511) by the estimated distance trav-eled on those roads by cars, light trucks,vans, and SUVs (345 × 109 kilome-ters). The resulting value is 4.4 × 10–9,or about four in a billion per kilometer.

2 July–September 2002

The calculations showedthat driving

the length of a typical nonstop flightis 65 times as risky as

flying on the10 major U.S. airlines.

PHOT

OS:

UMTR

I / SH

EKIN

AH ER

RINGT

ON

Armed with these two risk esti-mates, one for driving and the otherfor flying, we can specify something wecall the indifference distance—the dis-tance at which the two modes of travelare equally risky. For distances shorterthan the indifference distance, drivingis safer; for distances longer than theindifference distance, flying is safer.The indifference distance for drivingversus a nonstop flight can be calculatedby dividing the risk of flying a nonstopsegment (78.6 × 10–9) by the risk ofdriving a kilometer (4.4 × 10–9). Theresult is 18 kilometers. For one-stop

and two-stop flights, the indifferencedistances are 36 kilometers and 54kilometers, respectively. Thus for anydistance that is long enough for flyingto be an option, driving even on thesafest roads is more risky than flyingwith the major airlines.

Astute readers will note that ourcalculations do not include the trip to an airport (for flying) or the travelon local roads on the way to a ruralinterstate (for driving). True, we’veoverlooked this complication. But inmany circumstances, the risks for theseportions of the journey for the two modes

of long-distance travel may be aboutthe same. So we don’t believe that our estimates of indifference distancewould change all that much, even ifsuch factors were fully accounted for.

Just how much safer is flying thandriving? For an average-length nonstopflight (which works out to 1,157 kilo-meters), the risk of flying is just the78.6 × 10–9 value derived above. The risk of driving those same 1,157kilometers is 1,157 × 4.4 × 10–9, or5,091 × 10–9. Dividing 5,091 by 78.6,we estimate that driving the length of atypical nonstop segment is approxi-

mately 65 times as risky as fly-ing. Driving farther than1,157 kilometers would bemore than 65 times as risky;driving shorter than 1,157kilometers, but longer thanthe 18-kilometer indiffer-ence distance, would bebetween 1 and 65 times asrisky as nonstop flying (neglect-ing the drive to the airportand the travel on local roadson the way to the interstate).

FUTURESHOCK?

As all those stock pro-spectuses say, these figuresare descriptive for the timeperiod studied and are notpredictions of future per-formance. Making predictivestatements about the rel-ative risk of flying and driving after the attacks ofSeptember 2001 is indeedtough. In particular, it re-quires some assumptionsabout whether such aberrantevents will be repeated and,if so, how often. Because thefrequency of such episodes


continued…

500

400

300

200

100

00 200 400 600 800 1,000

trip distance (kilometers)

fata

lity

prob

abili

ty (

deat

hs p

er b

illio

n tr

ips)

average driver

two-stop flight

one-stop flight

nonstop flight

Statistics show that the risk of a fatality while driving on rural interstate highways is proportionalto the distance covered (solid), whereas the risk of being killed while traveling with one of themajor U.S. airlines depends on the number of intermediate take-offs and landings (dashed).The distance where these lines intersect, “the indifference distance,” is quite short (18 kilome-ters for a non-stop flight), making flying safer than driving for any distance for which taking anairliner is an option.

cannot be reliably estimated, we in-stead decided to calculate the frequencyneeded for the two travel modes tobecome equally risky.

As we explained above, the risk ofa fatality while driving the length of an average nonstop flight is 5,091 × 10–9.For nonstop flights to have had thesame estimated risk, there would haveto have been 28,046 flight fatalitiesover the 10-year period studied (basedon 54,061,237 nonstop segments and101.9 passengers per nonstop segment).That translates to 27,845 flight fatali-ties in addition to the 201 people who actually died over those years (not counting those on the fourhijacked flights). In turn, dividing27,845 by 232 (the number of passen-gers who died on the four hijackedplanes) we obtain the following: Forflying to become as risky as driving,disastrous airline incidents on the scaleof those of September 11th wouldhave had to occur 120 times over the10-year period, or about once a month.

Two conclusions follow. First,without diminishing the tragedy ofSeptember 11th (which also involvedmany deaths of people on the ground)or its political ramifications, from theperspective of personal safety it isimportant to consider that the annualnumber of lives lost in road traffic acci-dents in the United States is enormousin comparison (42,119 fatalities in2001). Second, the relative safety ofdomestic flying on the major airlinesover driving is so strong that the direc-tion of the advantage would beunchanged unless the toll of terrorismin the air became, almost unthinkably,many times worse than it has been.

Bibliography

Evans, L. Traffic Safety and the Driver. 1991. New York:

Van Nostrand.

Evans, L., M. C. Frick, R. C. Schwing. 1990. “Is it safer to fly

or drive? A problem in risk communication.” Risk

Analysis, 10:239–246.

Highway Statistics 2000. 2001. Washington: U.S.

Department of Transportation.

Sivak, M., D. J. Weintraub, M. J. Flannagan. 1991.

“Nonstop flying is safer than driving.” Risk Analysis,

11:145–148.

Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Aircraft Accidents,

Worldwide Operation, 1959–2000. 2001.

Seattle: Boeing Commercial Airplanes.


For flyingto become as risky as driving,

disastrous airline incidentson the scale of those of September 11th

would have had to occurabout once a month.

RRRR

UMTR

I / SH

EKIN

AH ER

RINGT

ON

MakingTelematicsSaferUMTRI and DelphiConduct Major Study onDriver Distraction

New in-vehicle tech-nology is constantlybeing developed.

In the not-so-distant future,cars may contain a widearray of technology includingcell phones, navigation/information systems, enter-tainment systems, wirelessInternet, and even safetysystems that can detect

potentially dangerous driv-ing situations and warndrivers to take correctiveactions. However, bothsingly and in combination,these technologies mayadversely affect crash risk bydistracting drivers from thedriving task.

To address this issue,NHTSA is sponsoring theSAVE-IT program (SAfetyVEhicles using adaptiveInterface Technologies).SAVE-IT aims to create asystem that can reduce dis-traction-related crashes andenhance the effectiveness ofcollision warning systems.Program members willresearch and develop a closed-loop vehicle environment bymeasuring the driver’s state,assessing the situationalthreat, prioritizing informa-tion presentation, providing

adaptive countermeasures tominimize distraction, andoptimizing advanced colli-sion warning systems.

UMTRI and the Uni-versity of Iowa, a prominentautomotive human factorsresearch institution, offerexpertise in human factorsinnovation. Delphi Corpor-ation contributes knowledgeof advanced safety warningsystems, driver state monitor-ing, sensor suite development,data fusion, and advancedhuman-machine interfaces.General Motors and FordMotor Company provide anindustry perspective to thesystem’s evaluation. SeeingMachines, Inc. will developa non-invasive eye-trackingsystem to support theresearch. The program isadministered by the Volpe


Researcher Ken Mayer works with volunteer Stephanie Powell on a telematics study that measured task completion time and its impact on driving performance. Stephanie is enteringtelephone numbers into a touchscreen keypad in UMTRI's driving simulator.

PHOT

OS:

UMTR

I / SH

EKIN

AH ER

RINGT

ON

continued…

CO

LL

ABO

RAT

ION

S

National TransportationSystems Center.

UMTRI’s effort on theproject will be managed byDavid W. Eby. Project tasksleaders are Barry Kantowitz,Paul Green, David LeBlanc,and Eby. Other key UMTRIresearchers include Lidia P.Kostyniuk, John Sullivan,Robert Ervin, Dan Blower,and Charles MacAdam.Their work continuesthrough 2005 and focuseson the six main areasdescribed below.

Crash StatisticsAnalysis

This task,led by David W.Eby, a seniorassociate re-search scientist inUMTRI’s Socialand BehavioralAnalysis Divi-sion, will identifywhich vehicle crash scenar-ios the SAVE-IT technologyshould be designed to pre-vent and will estimate thenumber of crashes thatSAVE-IT technology couldpotentially mitigate.

UMTRI will performan initial literature reviewand assessment of existingdata, convene an expertpanel to identify scenariosfor SAVE-IT to address, andanalyze existing data to esti-mate the potential numberof crashes that SAVE-ITcould mitigate.

Driving Task DemandThis task will determine

crash rates from environ-mental factors such as theroad, traffic, and weatherconditions, and convertcrash rates to a requiredreaction time to prevent thecrash. Eby will lead a reviewof human factors literatureand crash databases to identi-fy relevant potential measuresof driving task demand.

Paul Green, a seniorresearch scientist inUMTRI’s Human FactorsDivision and head of the

Driver Interface Group, willlead the effort to determine diagnostic measures, such ashow the response time to abraking event varies as afunction of the workload/visual demand of driving,and how crash frequencyrelates to braking responsetimes. Green will also leadthe effort to develop andvalidate equations usingdriving task demand vari-ables for crash frequencyand RTreq. Based upon theresults of simulator studies,a new simulator study will be conducted to cross-validate the equations. To

expand the linkage, multiplecrash scenarios—most likelyrear-end crashes with movingand stopped vehicles—will be examined.

Performance MeasuresThis task, led by Green,

will determine performancemeasures that are diagnosticof driver distraction andaddress questions such as:

• How well do peopledrive normally and howdoes driving perform-ance change when drivers

are distracted?

• How do themeans, standarddeviations, distri-bution shape, anddistribution typesfor various perfor-mance measuresdiffer between thetwo classes ofconditions?

• Do various types ofdistractions (e.g., pre-dominantly visual vs.predominantly audito-ry) have the same effecton various measures ofdriving performance?The team will analyze

baseline driving conditionsand compare them to “dis-tracted driving” data todetermine which perform-ance variables are diagnosticof driver distraction.“Without an understandingof performance in condi-tions of little or no distrac-tion (baseline driving), it isdifficult to determine when

CO

LLA

BOR

ATIO

NS


The collaboration of SAVE-IT team members will

result in a system that can reduce distraction-

related crashes and enhance the effectiveness

of collision warning systems.

driving performance hasdeclined,” Green says.

Telematics SelectionThis task will determine

the distraction potential ofcommonly-used telematicsfunctions. To mitigateexcessive distraction, it isimportant to determinewhich functions are mostdistracting and need to beadvised against or blocked.Barry Kantowitz, director ofUMTRI, will lead the effortto identify demand levels,closely coordinat-ing the experimentswith simulatorresearch conductedby Dr. John Lee atthe University ofIowa. They willjointly producescenarios and datareduction programs.Each experimentwill test at leastsixteen subjects using effi-cient repeated-measuresdesigns with counterbalanc-ing. Independent anddependent variables will beselected in collaboration. Because telematics demandand driving-task demandcan be measured anddefined in similar ways, theseexperiments will be highlyintegrated and performed atthe same site.

Kantowitz says, “We willbe conducting an experimentin our driving simulator toevaluate the cognitive de-mands placed on the driverby various in-vehicle

telematic devices.” Theteam will focus on analyzingsteering entropy and record-ing reaction time for drivingand embedded telematicsecondary tasks.

Data FusionEby will lead the task of

fusing various distractiondimensions to determine anoverall distraction level.UMTRI will assist DelphiCorporation in scenariogeneration, simulator opera-tion, subject recruitment,

and other tasks. UMTRIwill also aid Delphi in itsdata fusion efforts by per-forming neural networkmodeling. UMTRI has experience applying neuralnetworks to driver warningand control functionalities to model driver longitudinaland lateral control behavior,and to classify and detect dif-ferent styles of driving behavior.

Testing andEvaluation

David LeBlanc, an assis-tant research scientist inUMTRI’s EngineeringResearch Division, will head

the evaluation task, whichwill occur in two phases.First, the team will formulatea research plan that describesthe general strategy for evaluating the Driver SafetyManagement System (DSMS), including themethodology and facilitiesthat will be used for theevaluation. Next, a real-world evaluation will takeplace, both on a closed-course and on public roads,with recruited drivers.These tests will evaluateaspects of DSMS perform-

ance and assessdrivers’ respons-es to, and perceptions of,the DSMS,including poten-tial driveracceptance ofsimilar systems.The task willalso evaluateaspects of the

driver state assessment sub-system as well as the adaptivecountermeasure system.

Watch This SpaceWatch future editions

of the UMTRI ResearchReview for a more in-depth,follow-up story as the proj-ect progresses.

CO

LLA

BOR

ATIO

NS


NHTSA, Delphi Corporation, UMTRI, the

University of Iowa, General Motors, Ford Motor

Company, and Seeing Machines, Inc. are work-

ing together on the SAVE-IT project.

RRRR

UMTRI’sLibraryServes YouBy Bob Sweet

UMTRI’s library, more formal-ly known as the ResearchInformation and Publications

Center (RIPC), has been an indispen-sable feature of UMTRI’s researchcapabilities since the Institute openedin 1969. It is home to one of theworld’s largest collections of highway-safety literature. Its information isavailable not only to researchers atUMTRI, but to interested profession-als worldwide.

Consistent with the wide variety of disciplines employed by UMTRIresearchers, the collection covers theareas of accident patterns and statistics,heavy-vehicle and passenger-cardynamics, biomechanics and injurymechanisms, driver behavior, alcoholand driving, occupant protection,young and elderly drivers, intelligenttransportation systems, and human fac-tors. The library catalog has over105,000 records, representing books,technical reports, journals, individualjournal articles, conference papers,brochures, and pamphlets.

The RIPC staff includes three pro-fessional librarians (Bob Sweet, SarahBidigare, and Kristin Janus), two sup-port-staff members (Marlene Dyer andAnna Harden), and an editor (MonicaMilla). In addition to acquiring andmaintaining the library collection,RIPC staff members maintain theUMTRI website and an intranet. They provide an editing service forUMTRI authors, write and publish theUMTRI Research Review, help to

develop UMTRI promotional materials,write a monthly staff newsletter, and dis-seminate UMTRI publications to theNational Technical Information Serviceand other libraries and transporta-tion centers.

UMTRI librarians are active mem-bers of the Transportation Division ofthe Special Libraries Association (SLA).The Association provides exceptionalopportunities for resource sharing andcollaborations that inevitably enhancethe RIPC’s value to UMTRI and tothe research community at large. Aspart of a pilot projectsponsored by theNational TransportationLibrary, UMTRI librari-ans are working withother SLA members toform a consortium of Midwesterntransportation libraries. The consor-tium, composed primarily of statedepartment of transportation libraries,seeks to build an infrastructure thatwill facilitate resource sharing andenhance existing cataloging and interli-brary loan services.

Researchers worldwide rely onUMTRI’s library as the place to go for

materials that they sometimes can findnowhere else. Since 1999, UMTRI’slibrary catalog has been searchable viathe worldwide web (http://www.umtri.umich.edu/library/simple.html),making the treasures of the libraryeven more widely accessible. Manysearchers avail themselves of UMTRI’sdocument-delivery service to get hardcopies of items that they’ve identifiedthrough web-based catalog searches.(See the sidebar for more informationon how to navigate the various on-line catalogs.)

Thanks to the advancement oflibrary-services technology, UMTRIresearchers are not limited to what theRIPC can house within its walls.UMTRI librarians are able to accessmaterials virtually anywhere in theworld. This capability continues toevolve and expand as the University ofMichigan Library’s digital resourcesgrow. Although the library is a small,


Library staffers (l–r) seated: Marlene Dyer, Sarah Bidigare. standing: Anna Harden, Bob Sweet, Monica Milla, Kristin Janus.

UMTRI reports are now available online athttp: //www.hti.umich.edu/u/umtri/ .

UMTR

I / SH

EKIN

AH ER

RINGT

ON

independent library at the Universityof Michigan, librarians have access to the full resources of the Universitylibrary system, a world leader in developing digital-library technologyand resources.

RIPC staff members are workingin conjunction with the University'sDigital Library Production Service on

a project to digitize all of UMTRI'sresearch reports, from the earliest1960s-era reports to those being writ-ten now.

Currently, about 600 reports, pub-lished from 1967 through 1979, areonline at http://www.hti.umich.edu/u/umtri/. By the end of 2003, allunclassified UMTRI reports will be

available. Reports are displayed as digi-tal images and can be downloaded orprinted as PDF files that are segment-ed in twenty-page increments. You cansearch for reports by key words, title,subject, author, date range, full text,and more.


What resources does the UMTRI library hold for you? Browse our collection and find out.

UMTRI Library Main Catalog http://www.umtri.umich.edu/library/simple.html

UMTRI Library Advanced Search Cataloghttp://www.umtri.umich.edu/library/advanced.html

UMTRI Subject Thesaurus http://www.umtri.umich.edu/library/thesaurus.html

Search Syntax

& = AND

/ = OR

! = NOT

* = truncation

Type this: To find:

vehicle dynamics Those words, in that order

alcohol / drugs Either word, or both words

alcohol & drugs Items that contain both words (items that contain just oneof the words will be ignored)

vehicle dynamics ! truck* “vehicle dynamics” but not “truck,” “truckers,” “trucks,” or“trucking”

biomechanic* Items beginning with “biomechanic” such as biomechanics,biomechanical, etc.

< 1998 Dates before 1998 (does not include 1998)

<= 1998 Dates from 1998 and earlier

Type this: To find:

> 1998 Dates after 1998 (does not include 1998)

>= 1998 Dates from 1998 to the present

1997 : 1998 Dates from 1997 through 1998 (inclusive)

Search Fields

Field: Available From: Explanation:

Keyword Main Combines searching of title, author, data, corporate author, journal/reference, subjectterm/code, etc.

Title Main, Advanced Titles of journal article, technical report, conference proceeding, etc.

Author Main, Advanced Catalog contains last name and first initial only

Date Main, Advanced Year of publication only

UMTRI Accession Advanced Call number for finding items on Number library shelves

Corporate Author Advanced Institutional affiliation of authors

Journal/Reference Advanced Journal, book, or conference proceedings inwhich the item was published

Report/Contract/ Advanced Numbers assigned to an item at a local Grant/Project or national levelNumbers

Conference Advanced Name of conference

Subject Terms or Advanced Subject terms and codes assigned to anCodes item by UMTRI Library staff

RRRR

Finding Your Way in the UMTRI Library Catalog


Conference PapersEbert, S.M.; Reed, M.P. 2002. “Characterization of driver seatbelt donning

behavior.” Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research

Institute, Biosciences Division. 2002 p. Human Factors in Seating and

Automotive Telematics. Warrendale, SAE, 2002, pp. 119–124. Report

No. SAE 2002-01-0783. UMTRI-95608 A17.

Flannagan, M.J.; Sivak, M.; Mefford, M.L. 2002. “Distance perception in

camera-based rear vision systems.” Michigan University, Ann Arbor,

Transportation Research Institute, Human Factors Division. 8 p.

Advanced Lighting Technology for Vehicles. Warrendale, SAE, 2002,

pp. 13–20. Sponsored by Ichikoh Industries, Tokyo (Japan) Report

No. SAE 2002-01-0012. UMTRI-95572 A02.

Jahns, S.K.; Reed, M.P.; Hardee, H.L. 2001. “Methods for in-vehicle meas-

urement of truck driver postures.” PACCAR, Bellevue, Wash./ Michigan

University, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute, Biosciences

Division/ International Truck and Engine Corporation. 4 p. Truck

Safety and Driver Issues. Warrendale, SAE, 2001, pp. 59–62. Report

No. SAE 2001-01-2821. UMTRI-95567 A07.

Reed, M.P.; Lehto, M.M.; Anctil, B.; Brown, C.; Noy, I. 2002. “Development

of seatbelt fit assessment components for the ASPECT manikin.”

Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute,

Biosciences Division/ Biokinetics and Associates, Ottawa, Ontario

(Canada)/ Canada, Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 6 p. Advances

in Safety Test Methodology. Warrendale, SAE, 2002, pp. 63–68.

Report No. SAE 2002-01-0686. UMTRI-95613 A08.

Reed, M.P.; Manary, M.A.; Flannagan, C.A.C.; Schneider, L.W. 2000.

“Comparison of methods for predicting automobile driver posture.”


Biosciences Division. Published by Warrendale, PA: Society of

Automotive Engineers. 12 p. Report No. SAE 2000-01-2180.

UMTRI-95447.

Schoettle, B.; Sivak, M.; Flannagan, M.J. 2002. “High-beam and low-beam

headlighting patterns in the U.S. and Europe at the turn of the millen-

nium.” Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research

Institute, Human Factors Division. 22 p. Advanced Lighting Technology

for Vehicles. Warrendale, SAE, 2002, pp. 71–92. Report No. SAE

2002-01-0262. UMTRI-95572 A09.

Sivak, M.; Flannagan, M.J.; Schoettle, B.; Nakata, Y. 2002. “Benefits of

applying adaptive headlighting to the current U.S. and European low-

beam patterns.” Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Transportation

Research Institute, Human Factors Division. 13 p. Advanced Lighting

Technology for Vehicles. Warrendale, SAE, 2002, pp. 131–143.

Sponsored by Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Industry Affiliation

Program for Human Factors in Transportation Safety. Report No. SAE

2002-01-0524. UMTRI-95572 A12.

Journal ArticlesErvin, R.; Bogard, S.; Fancher, P.S. 2001. “Radar detection of vehicles in a

string: gaining situation awareness of a propagating conflict.”


Engineering Research Division. 7 p. Transportation Research Record,

No. 1779, 2001, pp. 33–39. Sponsored by National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.; Transportation Research

Board, Committee on Simulation and Measurement of Vehicle and

Operator Performance, Washington, D.C. Report No. 01-0531.

UMTRI-62737.

Fancher, P.S.; Bareket, Z.; Bogard, S. 2001. “Modeling driver behavior by

using mind’s eye coordinates.” Michigan University, Ann Arbor,

Transportation Research Institute, Engineering Research Division. 8 p.

Transportation Research Record, No. 1779, 2001, pp. 1–8. Sponsored

by Transportation Research Board, Committee on Simulation and

Measurement of Vehicle and Operator Performance, Washington, D.C.

Report No. 01-0503. UMTRI-62733.

Sayers, M.W.; Mousseau, C.W.; Gillespie, T.D. 2002. “Using simulation to

learn about vehicle dynamics.” Mechanical Simulation Corporation,

Ann Arbor, Mich./ Toledo University, Mechanical, Industrial, and

Manufacturing Department, Ohio/ Michigan University, Ann Arbor,

Transportation Research Institute, Engineering Research Division. 16 p.

International Journal of Vehicle Design, Vol. 29, Nos. 1/2, 2002, pp.

112–127. UMTRI-62728.

Shope, J.T.; Bingham, C.R. 2002. “Drinking-driving as a component of prob-

lem-driving and problem behavior in young adults.” Michigan

University, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute, Social and

Behavioral Analysis Division/ Michigan University, Ann Arbor, School

of Public Health, Department of Health Behavior and Health

Education/ Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Medical School/ Veterans

Health Administration, Ann Arbor, Mich. 10 p. Journal of Studies

on Alcohol, Vol. 63, No. 1, Jan. 2002, pp. 24–33. Sponsored by

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Rockville, Md.

UMTRI-62763.

Sullivan, J.M.; Flannagan, M.J. 2002. “The role of ambient light level in fatal

crashes: inferences from daylight saving time transitions.” Michigan

University, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute. 12 p.

Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 34, No. 4, July 2002, pp.

487–498. Sponsored by Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Industry

Affiliation Program for Human Factors in Transportation Safety.

UMTRI-62821.

HO

TO

FFT

HE

PR

ESS


Waller, P.F. 2002. “Challenges in motor vehicle safety.” Michigan University,

Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute. 21 p. Annual Review of

Public Health, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2002, pp. 93–113. UMTRI-95482.

Waller, P.F. 2001. “Public health’s contribution to motor vehicle injury pre-

vention.” Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research

Institute. 2 p. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 21, No.

4, supplement 1, Nov. 2001, pp. 3–4. UMTRI-95483.

Technical ReportsMacAdam, C. 2001. Development of a driver model for near/at-limit vehi-

cle handling. Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research

Institute, Engineering Research Division. 120 p. Sponsored by General

Motors Corporation, Research and Development Center, Warren, Mich.

Report No. UMTRI-2001-43. UMTRI-95569.

Schoettle, B.; Sivak, M.; Nakata, Y. 2002. The locations of signaling and

lighting equipment on passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. [The loca-

tions of signaling and lighting equipment on passenger vehicles sold in

the United States] Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Transportation

Research Institute, Human Factors Division. Published by Ann Arbor,

Mich.: University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute. 19 p.


Program for Human Factors in Transportation Safety. Report No.

UMTRI-2002-8. UMTRI-96155.

Sivak, M.; Flannagan, M.J.; Schoettle, B.; Mefford, M.L. 2002. Driving per-

formance with and preference for HID headlamps. Michigan

University, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute, Human

Factors Division. 19 p. Sponsored by Michigan University, Ann Arbor,

Industry Affiliation Program for Human Factors in Transportation

Safety. Report No. UMTRI-2002-3. UMTRI-95510.

Sullivan, J.M.; Flannagan, M.J.; Schoettle, B. 2002. The appearance of bend-

ing light from other vehicles. Michigan University, Ann Arbor,

Transportation Research Institute, Human Factors Division. 29 p.


Program for Human Factors in Transportation Safety. Report No.

UMTRI-2002-2. UMTRI-95511.

HO

TO

FFT

HE

PR

ESS

RRRR


Strategic Transport Modelling SeminarNovember 7, Crowthorne, Englandhttp://www.trl.co.uk

Urban Mobility for AllNovember 12–15, Lome, Togohttp://www.codatu.org

NCAT’s National Transportation SymposiumNovember 13–14, Auburn, Alabamahttp://www.eng.auburn.edu/center/ncat/

International Roadway Work Zone SafetyDecember 3–7, Orlando, Floridahttp://www.artba.org/

Work Zone Traffic ControlDecember 5–6, Las Vegas, Nevadahttp://www.asce.org/conted/seminars/

TRB 82nd Annual MeetingJanuary 12–16, Washington, D.C.http://www4.trb.org/trb/annual.nsf

Nodding Off: Fatigue and Transport Accidents

February 4, London, Englandhttp://www.pacts.org.uk/conferences.htm

Retroreflective Materials Used in Transportation

February 5–6, Baton Rouge, Louisianahttp://208.233.211.80/TRAIN/

astm_practices.htm

68th Road Safety Congress: Safer DrivingMarch 3–5, Blackpool, Englandhttp://www.rospa.org.uk/road/

Motor Vehicle Accident ReconstructionMarch 3–5, Detroit, Michiganhttp://www.sae.org/calendar/

SAE 2003 World CongressMarch 3–6, Detroit, Michiganhttp://www.sae.org/congress/index.htm

National Conference on Highway Safety Priorities

March 9–11, Chicago, Illinoishttp://www.lifesaversconference.org/

6th International Conference on Fatigue and Transportation

March 9–14, Fremantle, Australiahttp://www.congresswest.com.au/

FATIGUE2003/

Urban Transport 2003March 10–12, Crete, Greecehttp://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2003/

urban03/index.html

World of Asphalt 2003March 17–20, Nashville, Tennesseehttp://www.worldofasphalt.com

Driver Distraction and TelematicsMarch 18, Troy, Michiganhttp://www.sae.org/calendar/

semsafe.htm#drivedist

Transportation’s Role in Successful Communities

March 23–26, Fort Lauderdale, Floridahttp://www.ite.org/Conference/info.htm

The Safety of New Technology in TransportMarch 31–April 4, Leeds, Englandhttp://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/short/

schedule.html#sntt

Conferences &

Events

RRRR

To Subscribe to theUMTRI Research Review…Complete the form below and send it with a check for $35 made out to the University of Michigan. This entitles you to a one-year subscription to the UMTRI Research Review.

NAME ___________________________________________________________ DATE ____________________________________

TITLE _________________________________________ ORGANIZATION______________________________________________

ADDRESS ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

CITY __________________________________________ STATE______________________ ZIP ___________________________

Mail your check for $35 and the form above to:• Monica Milla, Editor • UMTRI Research Review • University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute •

• 2901 Baxter Rd • Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150 •

INCLUDE +4

Transportation Tidbits• The world’s first automobile license plates were issued in

Paris, France, on August 14, 1893. Plates were not issuedin the United States for a few more years, when Bostonwas the first city to require its motorists to hold a licenseand register their vehicles.

• On February 1, 1898, the Travelers Insurance Companywas the first company to issue an automobile insurancepolicy to an individual.

• On May 20, 1899, Jacob German, operator of a taxicabfor the Electric Vehicle Company, became the first driverto be arrested for speeding. He was stopped by a bicycleroundsman for driving at the “breakneck” speed of twelvemiles per hour on Lexington Avenue in Manhattan.

• The first public parking garage in the United States wasestablished on May 24, 1899, in Boston as the Back BayCycle and Motor Company. It was advertised as a “stablefor renting, sale, storage, and repair of motor vehicles.”

• On April 17, 1911, Charles F. Kettering applied for a U.S.patent for a self-starting mechanism to make starting carseasier than with the crank-starter. Twelve thousand self-starter units were installed in the 1912 Cadillac, providingwomen with access to cars for the first time.

• The Lincoln Tunnel was officially opened to traffic onDecember 21, 1937, allowing motorists to drive betweenNew Jersey and Manhattan beneath the Hudson River.

• The first American sports car took shape on June 12,1952, as Maurice Olley, a chief engineer for Chevrolet,completed a chassis code-named “Opel.” It later becomethe 1953 Corvette.

• On November 15, 1965, Craig Breedlove set a new landspeed record driving his jet-powered Spirit of America–Sonic 1 vehicle at 600.601 mph.


RRRR

All facts from “This Day in Automotive History,” http://www.historychannel.com.

Editor’s Note: The last Transportation Tidbits column incorrectly stated that the red octagonal stop sign was born in 1925. In fact, it was not originally red, but yellow with black lettering. It wasn’t until September, 1954 that the stop sign became red. Thanks to Albert L. Godfrey for catching this.

2901 Baxter RdAnn Arbor MI 48109-2150

Non-Profit OrganizationU.S. Postage

P A I DAnn Arbor, MI

P e r m i t N o . 1 4 4

umtriUniversity of Michigan

Transportation Research Institute

umtri research review, vol. 33, no. 3 · • university of michigan transportation research...

Documents